Road rules1 min ago
Has red Ken flipped?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1 305023,00.html
Now I support the �25 idea but why allow small cars in for nowt? surely they will negate any benefit that the current system has delivered. So is it �25 or nothing from October? or have I misunderstood?
Now I support the �25 idea but why allow small cars in for nowt? surely they will negate any benefit that the current system has delivered. So is it �25 or nothing from October? or have I misunderstood?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, gromit, your pr�cis is incongruous.
The �politics of envy� passage referred to the preceding remarks, not those that followed it. Sorry if I misled, but I thought it was quite clear.
jno, the inconvenient truth you refer to is as follows:
In the 1998 referendum to establish a London Assembly and mayor 34% of the electorate turned out and 72% of those voted in favour. So less than 1 in 4 of the electorate voted for a mayor and an assembly.
In the last mayoral election (2004) the turnout was 37%. Of those, 38% voted for Livingstone as their first choice whilst 62% voted for somebody else. So about 14% of the electorate voted for Livingstone as Mayor. And that was on the back of a manifesto that mentioned nothing about a "pollution charge".
Let�s hope that among the 63% who thought all this didn�t matter and couldn�t be bothered to vote are some of the people who are now moaning about the Mayor�s policies. They might just be persuaded to get of their backsides and cast their vote.
I doubt it very much and to be fair the alternatives on offer do not look too attractive.
The �politics of envy� passage referred to the preceding remarks, not those that followed it. Sorry if I misled, but I thought it was quite clear.
jno, the inconvenient truth you refer to is as follows:
In the 1998 referendum to establish a London Assembly and mayor 34% of the electorate turned out and 72% of those voted in favour. So less than 1 in 4 of the electorate voted for a mayor and an assembly.
In the last mayoral election (2004) the turnout was 37%. Of those, 38% voted for Livingstone as their first choice whilst 62% voted for somebody else. So about 14% of the electorate voted for Livingstone as Mayor. And that was on the back of a manifesto that mentioned nothing about a "pollution charge".
Let�s hope that among the 63% who thought all this didn�t matter and couldn�t be bothered to vote are some of the people who are now moaning about the Mayor�s policies. They might just be persuaded to get of their backsides and cast their vote.
I doubt it very much and to be fair the alternatives on offer do not look too attractive.
OK I've done my homework and have some real attributable statistics for you.
In answer to a question in the House of Commons:
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:S_W6fxVgK OcJ:www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607 /cmhansrd/cm071029/text/71029w0059.htm+compara tive+impact+4x4+and+other+vehicles&hl=en&ct=cl nk&cd=1
I'll do the percentages for you:
4x4s
Fatal 4.4%
Serious 4.1%
Slight 3.6%
Total 3.7%
Yet currently 7.5% new cars are 4x4s
http://smmtlib.findlay.co.uk/articles/sharedfo lder/Publications/4x4%20the%20facts%20Jan%2007 .pdf
In answer to a question in the House of Commons:
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:S_W6fxVgK OcJ:www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607 /cmhansrd/cm071029/text/71029w0059.htm+compara tive+impact+4x4+and+other+vehicles&hl=en&ct=cl nk&cd=1
I'll do the percentages for you:
4x4s
Fatal 4.4%
Serious 4.1%
Slight 3.6%
Total 3.7%
Yet currently 7.5% new cars are 4x4s
http://smmtlib.findlay.co.uk/articles/sharedfo lder/Publications/4x4%20the%20facts%20Jan%2007 .pdf
I don�t really care what happens in the next mayoral election, Quinlad. As far as I�m concerned London needs neither a mayor nor a local assembly.
There are 32 London Boroughs, all sucking in huge amounts of revenue, mainly from the so-called affluent outer London boroughs, which they promptly redistribute to mainly so-called deprived Inner London boroughs. Then you have the mayor and his assembly doing the same. Outer London boroughs (parts of which have nothing in common with London at all and are rural areas containing farmland) see very little benefits from these schemes.
When you consider that the national government sucks money in from South East and redistributes it to their mates in the so-called deprived North and Scotland, and the EU sucks in cash from �rich� countries to distribute to �poor� new entrants and inefficient French farmers, I believe there are enough wealth distribution schemes without Mr Livingstone having his �precept� to waste as well.
City Hall is operated by Mr Livingstone as (by his own admission) a personal fiefdom and he sees his remit as doing whatever he likes. He is an odious character with little or no respect for anybody who disagrees with his views (witness today�s contretemps with the London Assembly). The will of the electorate does not enter into it.
There are 32 London Boroughs, all sucking in huge amounts of revenue, mainly from the so-called affluent outer London boroughs, which they promptly redistribute to mainly so-called deprived Inner London boroughs. Then you have the mayor and his assembly doing the same. Outer London boroughs (parts of which have nothing in common with London at all and are rural areas containing farmland) see very little benefits from these schemes.
When you consider that the national government sucks money in from South East and redistributes it to their mates in the so-called deprived North and Scotland, and the EU sucks in cash from �rich� countries to distribute to �poor� new entrants and inefficient French farmers, I believe there are enough wealth distribution schemes without Mr Livingstone having his �precept� to waste as well.
City Hall is operated by Mr Livingstone as (by his own admission) a personal fiefdom and he sees his remit as doing whatever he likes. He is an odious character with little or no respect for anybody who disagrees with his views (witness today�s contretemps with the London Assembly). The will of the electorate does not enter into it.
The "will of the electorate" has put him there and obviously liked him enough to re-elect him.
I have little doubt that they will do so again as his strongest opponent is a famous celebrity baffoon.
He continues to run the capital for the benefit of the majority of it's inhabitants and not for the privileged minority who think that they deserve to have things run their way because they are rich or are magistrates or whatever.
Perhaps we'll just have to agree that the will of the electorate will have to hold sway
I have little doubt that they will do so again as his strongest opponent is a famous celebrity baffoon.
He continues to run the capital for the benefit of the majority of it's inhabitants and not for the privileged minority who think that they deserve to have things run their way because they are rich or are magistrates or whatever.
Perhaps we'll just have to agree that the will of the electorate will have to hold sway
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.